Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Ayaz

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Cutting through the walls of text, it seems the rough consensus is that this article should 1) go to the draftspace and 2) go through AFC before being mainspaced. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Ayaz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Aliza Ayaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Activist. Net-worth even 390 million pounds(no refs)? The article was started by User:Az.jooma the previous draft was rejected on 5th August 2019, not sure what has changed since then, for this article to be moved from the Draft space to the main space. The editing trend indicates paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Update: The sockpuppets cleverly moved the page of her brother from main space to User Talk and requested the page to be deleted. Clearly indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC) @AngusWOOF Need your opinion over here, since you rejected the draft last year with the same old references. Newly added sources aren't reliable. Angus1986 TALK 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a genuine activist doesn't make one notable, she fails notability and the editing on her page and the creation of her brother's page indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 15:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The original nomination claimed the page was "Clearly a scam." The nominator has since clarified the wording, but AP was obviously rebutting nom's now-removed accusation. It would have been clearer to strike the claim than to remove it completely.) pburka (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the uncited net worth claim. pburka (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It's heavily promotional with most of the article being large blocks of quotations from her. I can't tell from the sources where she would be independently notable. If the primary editor can provide WP:THREE of the best sources, that would be more helpful. Needs newspaper coverage, not blogs, not from within her associated organizations that are showering her with accolades. Teen Choice Awards for example is completely random and seems to be a vaguely connected local award not the ones they show on television. Winning her school's local awards isn't notable either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable feedback. It makes sense. :) Angus1986 TALK 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first edit to the article was by Az.jooma with the edit summary "KGS IT staff creating page". KGS is likely "Karachi Grammar School" which the subject attended. So, rather than the overly-hasty accusation of "a scam", "paid editing" and "sockpuppetry", the article could just as easily have been created by staff and students who share an interest in their relatively-illustrious one-time student (and perhaps share the same IP address)? I think that good faith should be assumed until proof is provided of paid editing or as a result of Angus1986's ongoing SPI report. Esowteric+Talk 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proof is that they added fake "Net Worth of 390 million pounds" and the suspected sock puppet "Ucliehcs" created an article on her brother Aashir Ayaz(also added 350 million pounds on his page) and when I placed a speedy deletion tag, the user tactically moved the page from the main space to User Talk page. Angus1986 TALK 16:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are clearly novice editors, and they probably copied the article to user talk space in a misguided attempt to save their work from deletion (perhaps thinking it would be lost). Esowteric+Talk 15:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric+Talk 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Esowteric+Talk 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three best independent, reliable sources to support notability:
Brandysnario isn't a notable/reliable source, doesn't count. Also, the people who created the page for her brother intentionally moved from main space to User Talk to avoid deletion(after I placed a speedy deletion tag),so not so novice people. Moreover, it has been draftified by an admin, so I am pretty sure this will be draftified too. Good luck saving. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then, try this for a third independent, reliable source:
Have opened an entry at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source? Regarding notability: Note that many reliable sources do not have a Wikipedia article. Esowteric+Talk 18:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what you failed to mention was that Draft:Aashir Ayaz had just one unreliable source, so the two cannot be equated. Esowteric+Talk 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the blackening of editors' names, the real question is: Has this particular subject a valid claim to notability? Esowteric+Talk 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric I understand you have a Conflict Of Interest but the same articles were presented before in the last submission and it was rejected by a very experienced editor. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG. :) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: AngusMEOW is former Angus1986 and is not related to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The task here is to assess the current evidence about this subject, in this current case. I've debatably provided 3 or 4 sources to support a claim of notability for the subject. As I said, sources can be reliable without themselves having Wikipedia articles (for example, some local newspapers, some peer-reviewed scientific journals and many web sites). What criteria are you using to assess sources in Wikipedia articles before making AfD nominations? Yes, the article is "overgrown" as it stands, but it could be rigorously pruned and edited. Esowteric+Talk 08:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify References 1,3,4 aren't not independent. 2 is. The first nine references aren't that cool either, apart from two. If it is draftified it will need a considerable rewrite. scope_creepTalk 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - clearly does not meet mainspace standards of quality or referencing.Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice, please: Can anyone advise one of the involved editors, Studentsunion (talk · contribs)? They've left a message on my talk page and I've suggested they post a message here. Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to useful chain aboveDear all, thank you very much for sharing your useful comments. I am sorry, but I believe I must clarify, I am not even sure whether this is the right way to respond to your comments so where pointed out that the team and I are not well versed in making or editing Wikipedia pages, this is true. At the Students Union, we are a group of sabbatical officers, employed staff, and other members who are UCL alumni i.e recent graduates. As a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information. You can verify this across the internet or by calling UCL. We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicised. As we are a team of over 32 people, almost all of whom maintain access to our social media, wikipedia log in's and so on, it is very much possible that conflicting edits were made but this was all solely to try to improve our content. Where there have been immature edits, we can only apologise. We all work from the same place and hence the same IP address so that is not surprising. We have noted all the comments above and to add to a list of verifiable and notability, UCL has various webpages that share her achievements over time. As a mere student representative at the House of Lords (and not actually a Baroness or permanent member), she is not enlisted on the HoL websites but is a confirmed and current representative. Our team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members and ensure reliability as we cannot suffer backlash in representing incorrect or inappropriate information. In places where we have used direct quotes from her, we feel they added a face and value to her activism and how she successfully led to the UK Parliament declaring the climate emergency. All quotes are available on publicly available podcasts - perhaps even a quick google search will help. Again, I must say that edits have been made by different team members at different points and unfortunately no one has kept track. We do not have a system for accountability yet but lesson learned. As pointed out, various news channels have covered her work. She has been invited and involved with Cambridge and Oxford University too. I am continually discussing the above chain in my group chat with colleagues and we are looking to inform the subject itself too. However, we remain confused, where is the "net worth" or her brother's page? In any case, all your edits are most welcome. It is a bit hard to keep track of all the Wikipedia guidelines and standards, so does anyone have a suggested manuscript? We can work on the edits immediately to ensure we address (and hopefully avoid) the deletion nomination. Esowteric, especially thank you for advising us and we look forward to improving this. Could anyone confirm the next step please? Thank you so very much to all of you again for the useful discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to useful chain above Forgot to address one thing, our team can confirm that KGS is Karachi Grammar School as per our records and her school too participated in the Wikipedia page production. I am told one of our ex-colleagues has had a call with the school about this too. This is not paid editing as the SU is non-for-profit and solely for the students' interests. Hope this helps! Would it help if we provided more links to share her work perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing the deletion nominationDear all, we originally left a message on Esowteric's talk page who kindly informed us to discuss here. Just for the sake of updating (and apologies if we fail to understand how Wikipedia/talk pages work). We have stated recently:

"Dear Esowteric,

We are the Students Union at UCL. We are thankful for your time to leave some useful comments on one of our page's i.e Aliza Ayaz. We have just noticed them and will be working to improve them, although the team is a bit confused and unsure about how best improve the page. I notice the page say's "nominated for deletion". Is there any you could please consider not nominating for deletion? We would have to make the page from scratch and can verify that it is genuine. We are more than happy to organise Teams or Zoom calls with one or two of our team members to discuss this. We promise to try our best to work on this but are a little overwhelmed with other commitments at the SU. Could we please have some time to work on this - the current notices that appear on the page could be embarrassing for the university's image and the Students Union specific team members. If you could perhaps help us improve, we welcome absolutely any suggestions and changes as well. We would just request some kind guidance and help please. Thank you very much.

___ "We want to take this as a learning lesson for our work as we plan to create pages for some of our other notable staff too. We also want to avoid the page being deleted as it was a lot of hard work for some of us collating all the information. We apologise very much for failing to meet standards but hope to edit rigorously and ensure editors do not have an issue. We also remain confused about some aspects re: some information about net worth which isn't actually in the article? also re: are we not allowed to disclose how many siblings she has? One of our team members has confirmed adding this information as it is on student records and also widely known amongst the academic, student and professional community here and didn't think there would be any harm in adding. We are now also working on strictly monitoring who makes edits as it appears that someone may have made edits as a joke or personal attack, although we cannot confirm this. We apologise for the inconvenience and look forward to working together with all editors. We thank you very much for your time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studentsunion, 1) You have a conflict of interest if you are writing about a former or current member of your association. The tags for COI will have to remain until the article has been neutralized for tone by editors not connected to the subject. This would need to be disclosed by anyone who is connected to the union, the schools, or the organizations the subject has worked with. 2) Your username needs to be changed as it represents an organization. Only ONE person can use a particular Wikipedia account. 3) For the purposes of this AFD, you need to provide external news articles that cover the subject, not ones from the organization or associated with the organization. 4) If you are trying to add personal information about the subject, you will need to reference an external news source, and not private student records. 5) Whether the information about the subject is embarrassing or not should not matter; the article needs to be objective. See WP:PROUD But first, it needs to pass notability. 6) If you want more time to work on the article as a draft, then you can ask for it to go back to the Draft status. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing AngusWOOF Thank you so very much for your helpful contribution. We will work on these over the course of next few weeks as we are a bit overwhelmed. 1. How may one change this page back to a draft status? 2. Where may we find an editor who may edit the page "neutrally" as per your first point? If any one of you is able to do so, we would very much appreciate any help. Happy to coordinate and work on edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes made to maintain page/avoid deletion Have added multiple more references to help out the issue of referencing and uncited claims. :) WUF, UN, UK Parliament and Bloomsbury Festival amongst other independent sources should hopefully confirm notability. Can also be verified by independently contacting the UK Parliament, The Guardian or University College London perhaps. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your comments by using four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That will auto-generate your user signature. If you could get someone other than Aliza Ayaz to write a Guardian article, that would greatly help with notability. Esowteric+Talk 08:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a " a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information.... We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicise" you would do better not to write articles about the alumni of your own college, tho it is not prohibited. If you do, you should be scrupulously careful, going thru AfC, declaring your conflict of interest, and being certain there are excellent references. You should be especially careful in writing article on those associated with your Union.-- that is a close enough relationship that you MUST declar the coi, and my advice would be to write about almost anything else. If a person connected with the union is notable, someone without COI will know about them and write the article. I personally do not consider it paid editing in the narrow sense I think we should use for it, but others here think it's so close as to make little difference. It it is certainly editing with a very strong COI. Experience shows it is close to impossible to write NPOV article about people closely associated with oneself--hence the strictures.
There is another problem: we permit editing only by individuals, not groups. Some individual people need to take the responsibility. If you are team writing such article, you are going about it wrong. If your " team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members " everything written by them needs very strict scrutiny. This is exactly the type of editing COI was designed to prevent, and do not be surprised if other articles from the same origin are listed for deletion. Direct paid coi is often considered a reason for deletion; enthusiastic fans and alumni come very close to that. Looked at from another perspective, you are doing your notable alumni no favor in trying to write articles about them--quite the reverse. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify with the proviso it goes through AfC before moving to mainspace - I hesitate to form an opinion over notability as what is written in the text is often not backed up by the references. For example in the section "Awards and nominations", only two of the five references confirm she has won the award. Normal practice where there is a WP:COI is that the article is written in draft and has to go through the WP:AfC process. The article may be salvageable, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as it is. --John B123 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John B123. I've addressed the issue with awards, together with a number of other issues. Esowteric+Talk 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing by AfD nominator: Might I please ask the nominator of this ongoing AfD not to make any more potentially tendentious edits to Aliza Ayaz that undermine the subject's notability (for example, through the removal of two reliable references and the selective reinstatement of just one), and to also refrain from reverting my addition of wikilinks in the List of British Pakistanis and a wikilink and content about the subject at Rare FM? Above all, this raises ethical questions about a conflict of interest and of propriety. Furthermore, I have been accused of having a "COI on Aliza Ayaz based on the number of edits performed" by AngusMEOW in both this AfD and at the sockpuppet investigation of Az.jooma. I have no links to the subject or to any of the other editors or suspected sockpuppets. Stand down, Trooper! Thank you. Esowteric+Talk 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The following is a list of notable British Pakistanis, namely notable citizens or residents of the United Kingdom whose ethnic origins lie in Pakistan". Maybe I misinterpreted the list requirements? Esowteric+Talk 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the AfDed Aliza Ayaz diffs — diffB2
  • One of the list diffs — diffB3
  • One of the Rare FM diffs (All I did was add the wikilink) — diffB4.
Note that Angus1986 recently changed their username to AngusMEOW and then to QuantumUniverse. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aliza_Ayaz&oldid=979920788"